Case Study 3, Singapore: “To Blend or Not to Blend—That Is Not the Question”—Blended Delivery to ASEAN Teachers of English

Abstract

The move from face-to-face to blended delivery of courses is one of the most significant changes in teacher professional development that has occurred in the past two decades (Curtis in The TESOL Encyclopedia of English Language Teaching, 2017). The question for many institutions now is no longer whether but how to deliver blended courses.

1 Background

The move from face-to-face to blended delivery of courses is one of the most significant changes in teacher professional development that has occurred in the past two decades (Curtis, 2017). The question for many institutions now is no longer whether but how to deliver blended courses. Essentially, a “blended” course is one that integrates face-to-face classroom teaching with an online component (Bowyer & Chambers, 2017; Curtis, 2017). The online component typically involves asynchronous learning through recorded presentations, videos and podcasts, course readings, and forum interactions complemented by group or individual emails, text messaging, and online chats. It may also include synchronous online interactions, for example, virtual classrooms.

There are many reasons for the rise in the popularity of blended courses in higher education, particularly in professional development (PD). Combining such benefits as flexibility, unrestricted access, ease of submission, removal of geographical barriers, affordances of multimedia, and lower cost, blended learning has been found to offer the best results compared to fully online or fully face-to-face delivery (Hockly & Clandfield, 2010). Recently studies have shown improved learning outcomes, increased pass rates, and better retention rates especially for students from non-traditional backgrounds (Bowyer & Chambers, 2017) as further benefits of blended learning. In their meta-analysis of the literature on the effectiveness of online and blended learning, Means et al. (2013) found that “purely online learning has been equivalent to face-to-face instruction in effectiveness, and blended approaches have been more effective than instruction offered entirely in face-to-face mode” (p. 53). Simply put, blended learning is more effective than either face-to-face or online instruction alone. This raises questions about how the effectiveness of blended learning can be evaluated.

While evaluations and questionnaires are commonly used in many educational contexts to check the effectiveness of a course, Bowyer and Chambers (2017) note that “there is no one particular instrument that is seen to be the most effective for evaluating blended learning” (p. 20) because of a “diversity of reasons” (p. 22). Borg’s (2018) list of reasons for evaluating professional development initiatives (of which blended teacher education courses are considered) include accountability, e.g., to identify and measure the impact, achievement of targets, utilization of resources, and effectiveness of learning and improvement so as to inform the design, delivery, and resourcing of future courses.

Though not specifically designed for blended learning, Guskey’s 5-level framework for evaluating professional learning (Guskey, 2016) has been used for evaluating professional development initiatives (PDIs) in English language teaching (ELT) and English language teacher education (Borg, 2018). Level 1 evaluates participants’ reactions to the course, usually through end-of-course evaluations which include a rating scale and open-ended questions inviting further comments. Level 2 evaluates participants’ learning in terms of knowledge, skills, and attitudes, often through formative and summative assessment activities such as written assessments and reflections. Level 3 looks at the participant’s organization, particularly whether it has the characteristics and attributes to support the participant in implementing changes. Level 4 measures the impact of learning, that is, whether the course has brought about a change in professional practice. Finally, at Level 5, the evaluation looks at how effectively the learning from the course trickles down to the students of the participants who attended the course.

To sum up, although there are no prescriptions for evaluating the effectiveness and impact of blended learning, it is an area that requires some attention. Borg (2018) reiterates that “questions about whether a professional development initiative actually makes a difference are eminently justified” and evaluation should not be “an administrative formality or superficial afterthought” (p. 197). This evaluation answers the call for evaluation that is deliberate and purposeful and which seeks to provide accountability and identify areas for improvement.

2 Case Study

2.1 Participants

The study involved five cohorts, totaling 65 teachers of English from the 11 countries that form the Southeast Asian Ministers of Education Organization (SEAMEO) (see Table 1).

Table 1 Course participants (5 year-cohort)

The minimum course entry requirement was at least two years of full-time English teaching experience and a first degree in English, teaching, or language education (or the equivalent). Participants also had to meet a language proficiency requirement (equivalent to an IELTS band score of 6.5 overall) or pass the institution’s English language selection test.

The lecturers involved in the project all held doctoral degrees in Applied Linguistics, TESOL, or Education. Each lecturer had substantial teaching experience of at least 25 years. However, at the start of the project, none had experience of online teaching, and only one had any experience of online learning as a participant. The lecturers were given training by the vendor who supplied the Learning Management System (LMS), but such training focused on the technical affordances of the system rather than pedagogical principles of course design and delivery.

2.2 Project Description

Lincoln and Guba (1986) note that in order to provide transferability, a quality of trustworthiness in qualitative research, thick descriptions of the research site are needed so readers can judge the transferability of the findings. Hence, the project is described in considerable detail below. This case study looks at a Postgraduate Diploma in Applied Linguistics (PGDAL) course delivered by SEAMEO’s Regional Language Centre (RELC) in Singapore. RELC began operating in 1968 with its specific mission to develop language teacher education in the region and promote international cooperation among language professionals, mainly through the provision of scholarships to teachers to attend courses such as the PGDAL. This background information about RELC’s mission is significant because of its impact on course design and evaluation.

Before the inception of the blended course, the PGDAL was offered as a 22-week residential course in Singapore. However, the requirement for scholars to be away from work and family for 22 weeks appeared to be a barrier especially for female applicants, who are generally expected to manage family responsibilities, and applicants from less-developed economies, who would have to forego the income from their second jobs for the duration of the residential phase. Such drivers influenced the decision to redesign the course and deliver it in a blended mode. Other reasons were to give participants an opportunity to develop important twenty-first-century learning skills such as digital literacy and collaboration. From an institutional perspective, the blended mode was more cost-effective. Most important was the desire to leverage the affordances of technology and join the worldwide move toward e-learning.

A question that may be asked is why the institution decided to move to blended rather than fully online delivery. Three reasons contributed to this decision: Firstly, as the institution’s mission is to promote international cooperation among language professionals, a residential component allows participants to meet their lecturers and classmates face-to-face and to develop relationships. Secondly, as the mission extends to all SEAMEO countries, it was necessary to ensure that learners from different countries, backgrounds, and resource levels would have equal opportunities to succeed. Purely online delivery would disadvantage participants from low-resource countries who may be less familiar with online learning and have limited access to online resources. Thirdly, as the PGDAL is recognized by renowned international institutions such as the Nanyang Technological University (NTU) in Singapore and the Victoria University of Wellington (VUW) in New Zealand, with graduates eligible for credit transfer toward a Master’s courses, to maintain this recognition, it was necessary to ensure academic integrity of assessment, so examinations had to be administered on-site.

Pedagogically, the blended nature of the course allowed for technology to complement rather than replace face-to-face classroom teaching, discussion, and individual consultations, allowing students to experience “the best of both worlds.”

The main technology tools used were a Learning Management System (LMS), presentation slides with audio and visual recordings and links to videos from public domain sources such as YouTube and TedTalks. As shown in Fig. 1, within the LMS were a range of tools, allowing teachers to create, store, and curate such resources as lessons, quizzes, assignments, forums, shared blogs, and e-Portfolios and deliver them on a single site.

Fig. 1

Screenshot of LMS

The configuration of the course was guided by the priorities and requirements described earlier. As well, principles of situated learning (Lave & Wenger, 1991) within “communities of practice” (Wenger, 2010) influenced the “sandwich” model of the course, which consisted of two residential phases with an online phase “sandwiched” in between (see Fig. 2). The initial residential phase aimed to promote the establishment of a community of practice, in this case, a group of teachers with a shared aim (to complete the course) and who could provide mutual support in the learning process especially during the online phase. The online phase allowed the learning to be situated within the learner’s workplaces; as part of their course assessment, participants were required to put into practice ideas from their online lessons within authentic situations and contexts and then to evaluate the effectiveness of these approaches. Had the course been fully residential, there would not have been such potential for situated learning.

Fig. 2

The “sandwich” model

In specific terms, as shown in Fig. 3, in Phase 1, participants spent six weeks in Singapore, during which they received learner training for e-learning, completed two face-to-face modules, and took the respective examinations for these modules. They also attended three introductory lessons for each online course. The objectives of this phase were to ensure that learners could use the system competently and confidently, were clear about the requirements of the online courses and, perhaps most importantly, established relationships with their lecturers and co-learners. During Phase 2, participants returned to their home countries and completed three modules, each lasting one month. Each module consisted of eight lessons with recorded presentations, readings, eight compulsory forum postings, and two assignments. Finally, in Phase 3, participants returned to Singapore for four weeks for their final face-to-face module and revision sessions for their online modules prior to taking four examinations (see Fig. 3).

Fig. 3

Structure of blended PGDAL

At the end of the first five years of delivery, an evaluation was undertaken to determine the effectiveness and impact of the blended delivery of the course. Specifically, the evaluation sought to determine if the PGDAL had successfully met the missional and education goals of the institution and to identify areas for improvement.

2.3 Data Collection and Analysis

2.3.1 Data Collection

The evaluation employed a mixed methods approach. Quantitative and qualitative data from end-of-course evaluations were analyzed. On a 4-point Likert scale, participants rated their satisfaction with the course and lecturer. In addition, 29 out of 45 participants responded to an email questionnaire and 13 out of 14 took part in a face-to-face focus group discussion, representing a 71% response rate for both data collection methods. The email questionnaire and focus group discussions asked about respondents’ experience of the course, how the institution could have better supported them, and about the impact of the course on participants’ professional practice.

It should be mentioned that six participants were excluded from the study: one had moved overseas with no forwarding contact and five had dropped out of the course. It was felt that inviting these five to recall their experience of failure may cause emotional distress, hence they were not sent the email questionnaire.

As for the lecturers, three out of four who had taught the blended course (excluding the researcher) responded to an open-ended email questionnaire. The questionnaire asked lecturers about their prior experiences of online learning and teaching, the benefits of teaching the PGDAL online, obstacles they faced, how they overcame the obstacles and what the institution could have done to better support them in the transition from face-to-face to blended delivery.

2.3.2 Data Analysis

Quantitative data from the end-of-course evaluations were calculated by averaging the scores given on the Likert scale. The qualitative data from the email responses and verbatim transcripts of the focus group discussions were analyzed. Thematic analysis was employed, following the “step-by-step approach for conducting a trustworthy thematic analysis” (see Nowell et al., 2017).

3 Results

The results reported here were derived from the comments in the end-of-course evaluations, the email questionnaires, and transcripts of the focus group discussions. They pertain to the effectiveness of the “sandwich” model and the implementation of the blended course. Evaluation scores are not reported because of confidentiality policies.

The main themes that emerged during the coding were benefits and impact, obstacles and coping strategies, and recommendations. As this study seeks to provide insights for learners, teachers, and administrators, the findings are presented in the following categories: benefits, obstacles, and recommendations from various stakeholder perspectives.

3.1 Benefits

Of the many benefits identified were some common to online and blended courses in general, such as those mentioned earlier. However, the “sandwich” model shown in Fig. 2 amplified three specific benefits: the formation of strong Communities of Practices (CoPs); the opportunity for situated learning; and the transferability and recognition of the course. Firstly, participants were able to form effective CoPs. Arnold et al. (2007) cited in Hubbard (2008) claimed the presence of virtual CoPs in teacher education on the basis of “high amounts of mutual awareness and group cohesion [indicating] that students did try to connect with and support each other” (p. 184). As the comments below show, these characteristics were present among learners in the course:

What helped me get back into the flow of learning were my course mates who dropped me a line of support/reminder/motivation whenever I disappeared online. They really helped a lot. (ELT Trainer, Philippines)

Secondly, the course afforded opportunities for situated learning, or “learning that takes place in contexts close to those in which they will be used … providing links to the classroom setting” (Hubbard, 2008, p. 183). As one participant stated, because he and his course mates were “immersed in their actual teaching environment” (ELT Trainer, Philippines), he could integrate learning from the course in his teaching. The “sandwich model” with the online phase between two residential phases afforded opportunities for situated learning in the way that a fully face-to-face course could not have.

The third and, possibly, most important advantage of the “sandwich” model was the recognition and transferability it provided. DeFleur and Adams (2004) and Adams and DeFleur (2005) found that degrees earned through online or blended learning were not as well recognized as those earned in face-to-face setups, with admissions officers and employers favoring traditional delivery. Because academic integrity could be assured through face-to-face assessments, such as microteaching and proctored examinations during the final residential phase, institutions were willing to recognize and award advanced standing to graduates of this course. One participant was “able to take up and eventually finish my Master of Arts in Applied Linguistics from the National Institute of Education … I was given 4 courses as exemptions” (Private English Teacher, Singapore). Another added “two of my courses have been credited to the M.A. Program at the University of Santo Tomas” (High school teacher, Philippines).

The “sandwich” model also allowed the institution to provide training in how to learn online, ensuring that all learners were familiar with the LMS and able to use the main assessment tools. Furthermore, during Phase 1, participants could access soft copies of resources, and this was especially helpful to those from countries with poor internet connections. Third, face-to-face interaction enabled lecturers to identify learners’ individual needs and preferences instead of teaching “faceless students,” as happens in many fully online courses.

In sum, the model of blending described in this case study amplified benefits in terms of building communities of practice, providing opportunities for situated learning, assuring academic integrity, and levelling access to resources.

3.2 Obstacles

Many of the problems identified by the respondents were general to online courses, such as having to balance study with family and work. However, the ones discussed below are specific to the “sandwich” model, course design, lecturer practices, and the LMS that was used.

As explained above, during the first six-week residential component, parti-cipants had to complete two face-to-face modules, take the respective examinations and attend introductory lessons for three online modules. This was found to be too demanding and confusing as there were times when participants were attending lessons for five different modules in the same week because of timetabling constraints.

During the online phase, participants were required to complete eight graded forums and two assignments within a one-month duration for each online course. While the rationale of requiring two compulsory forum postings a week along with comments to their classmates’ postings was to ensure sustained learner engagement, there were many complaints that the workload was too onerous, especially for those who had to return to work during the online phase.

There were also concerns about the assessment. Comments such as these show that some were unhappy with the assessment and feedback practices used in the blended course:

The way forums were assessed was too lenient … everyone who wrote something … got 10 marks. The most hardworking participants who actively took part and gave several facts and comments were given the same score as those who wrote “so-called” comments. (University lecturer, Myanmar)

…we needed to … wait … for our classmates and lecturers to reply. As such, even if we were enthusiastic … the fire would sizzle when we did not have immediate responses. (English teacher, Singapore)

Obstacles were also faced by the lecturers who taught the blended course. One complained about the inadequacy of the LMS. As this lecturer held a doctorate in Education Technology and had extensive experience in teaching online, he was frustrated by the inadequacies of the LMS. Conversely, two lecturers admitted that as they had no previous experience of teaching or even learning online, it was challenging to convert their courses, utilize the LMS and manage their online teaching.

In summary, while the concerns of the learners were about the course, mainly the intensity, workload, and assessment practices, which were a result of this model of blending, the lecturers’ concerns were more general and pertained to the comparative inadequacies of the system and their lack of training and preparation to teach online.

3.3 Recommendations

Participants’ and lecturers’ responses to the questions of how they coped with their problems and what the institution could have done to support them more effectively yielded several recommendations.

Reflecting on their experience led several respondents to offer words of advice to current and future students. Firstly, learners need to self-regulate their learning and set their own goals. A Thai primary school teacher reported that she had felt pressurized to write longer forum postings because her friends had done so, even though it was not required. However, she realized that this was her own problem and concluded “you must understand your own goals.” Secondly, learners should exercise agency and take responsibility for directing their learning experiences. A Singaporean teacher who felt that the forum discussions were not meaningful enough decided to do the following:

I tried to argue from a contrary point of view to elicit more responses from my classmates …while getting them to be more critical and forthcoming in their responses to my views … I tried to get involved in various discussion threads … so as to excite my classmates with new ideas/perspectives. (Private English teacher, Singapore)

The participants also made recommendations to their lecturers. In relation to the forum postings, they wanted clear guidelines on the expected length and format. One of the most frequent requests was for teachers to give prompt, direct, and discerning feedback.

We want honest response, responses that are head on … did I get the answer right or was it too far, what are the additional input that you could give for me to supplement my understanding. (English teacher, Philippines)

Finally, the participants had many suggestions for the institution about making expectations clear, improving the course structure and timetable, and providing technical support during the online phase.

The recommendations made by the lecturers were for better and ongoing training in how to use the technology and to design online learning. Suggestions were also made for the provision of an instructional designer to design the online course and for more training in using the LMS.

Notwithstanding the above obstacles, the first five years of the PGDAL was successful in meeting the goals of the organization, especially in achieving the mission of developing language teacher education and promoting international cooperation among teachers in the ASEAN region. As this was the first time the institution was delivering any courses in a blended mode, it was fully expected that there would be areas that needed to be improved. In fact, the decision to carry out an in-depth evaluation of the first five years of the course was motivated by the desire to learn from mistakes and improve the effectiveness of the blended course.

4 Pedagogical Principles

The results of the evaluation confirm the value of the “sandwich” model. However, comments from course participants highlighted the need for more pedagogically sound timetabling and more effective assessment practices. Some specific changes made as a result of the evaluation were that modules were scheduled in blocks during the first residential phase, reading time was allocated several afternoons a week and a study period was scheduled before the final examinations. Changes were also made to the assessment by reducing the number of graded forums from eight to four and reminding lecturers to provide specific and direct feedback promptly.

In general, the evaluation data provide some insights for learners, lecturers, and administrators involved in blended learning:

• (a) Insights for learners: for learners to maximize learning, engagement, and resilience, the idea of “Own Time, Own Target” is helpful as it a reminder that learners should set their own goals and not worry about competing with other learners because they are in different situations. While some were working full-time during the online phase, others worked part-time or not at all. Not only should they set their own targets, but participants should also exercise agency in how they achieve their targets by directing learning experiences to achieve better learning outcomes.

• (b) Insights for lecturers: a key insight for lecturers can be encapsulated in “Learning by Doing.” Before teaching online, lecturers themselves should experience online learning from the perspective of a participant, as this will give them a better understanding of the obstacles faced by participants and help them to design the course more effectively. The effectiveness of such a practice was borne out in research by Hafner and Young (2007), in which teachers first participated in an online course before becoming tutors in one.

• (c) Insights for administrators: administrators and institutions might heed the call to “Start well.” Beginning with a residential phase or at least a synchronous online lesson would allow participants to form Communities of Practice, the importance of which cannot be over-emphasized in reducing dropout and increasing successful completion in blended learning. As one participant quoted: we were actively encouraging each other, let’s finish as a group …so those who were not able to catch up, we tried to help them (ELT Trainer, Philippines).

In conclusion, the question for many institutions involved in teacher education is no longer whether to offer blended courses but how to deliver blended learning effectively. One model of blended delivery, the “sandwich” model, which was described in this case study, has been found to offer considerable benefits to learners, lecturers, and educational institutions.